在 2016/10/24 23:18, Paolo Bonzini 写道:
On 24/10/2016 17:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
2016-10-24 16:39+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
On 19/10/2016 19:24, Radim Krčmář wrote:
+ if (vcpu->arch.st.msr_val & KVM_MSR_ENABLED)
+ if (kvm_read_guest_cached(vcpu->kvm, &vcpu->arch.st.stime,
+ &vcpu->arch.st.steal,
+ sizeof(struct kvm_steal_time)) == 0) {
+ vcpu->arch.st.steal.preempted = 1;
+ kvm_write_guest_cached(vcpu->kvm, &vcpu->arch.st.stime,
+ &vcpu->arch.st.steal,
+ sizeof(struct kvm_steal_time));
+ }
Please name this block of code. Something like
kvm_steal_time_set_preempted(vcpu);
While at it:
1) the kvm_read_guest_cached is not necessary. You can rig the call to
kvm_write_guest_cached so that it only writes vcpu->arch.st.steal.preempted.
I agree. kvm_write_guest_cached() always writes from offset 0, so we'd
want a new function that allows to specify a starting offset.
Yeah, let's leave it for a follow-up then!
I think I can make a having-offset version. :)
Thanks,
Paolo
Using cached vcpu->arch.st.steal to avoid the read wouldn't be as good.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
